Skip to main content
Glama

List project rules

list_project_rules
Read-only

A project's rules: when an issue enters a state, a checklist from a template is appended to its description. A rule appends its checklist to an issue's description when the issue ENTERS the rule's state — from the board, the Jira API or update_issue alike. The block starts with a hidden marker line '[//]: # (pm-rule:)'; while that line is in the description, entering the state again adds nothing (the journal says 'alreadyThere'). A [~username] in the template is a mention: that person is notified when the checklist lands. A checklist that would make the description too long is not added and the journal says 'tooLong'; the move itself still happens. 'trigger' says WHEN: 'entered' (the default — the issue entered 'status'), 'versionReleased' (a version it goes out in was marked released), 'subtasksDone' (every issue under it is finished — the rule acts on the PARENT) or 'subtaskStarted' (an issue under it was taken into work — the parent again); or what the project's repository said through its webhook: 'branchCreated' (a branch naming the issue was made), 'mrOpened', 'mrMerged' or 'mrClosed' (a merge request — a pull request on GitHub — naming the issue was opened, merged, or closed without merging). An issue is named by its key in the branch, the title or the description, and only this project's issues are touched. 'branch' narrows the three merge-request events to a request going INTO that branch, e.g. 'main'. Nobody is behind a webhook, so such a rule acts as whoever last saved or switched it on, whatever its action. 'deployed' fires when a pipeline reports that the issue went out to an environment (report_deployment); 'environment' narrows it to one of the project's environments by name, e.g. 'staging'. 'actChanged' fires on the issues that cite a legal act when its publisher's text changed, and 'actTouched' only on those where the change is in the place they cite (or that cite the act as a whole) — found once a week, only in a project with the «Legal acts» add-on; 'claimBasisChanged' fires on the issues that cite a claim ([thm:…], [claim:…]) whose legal basis is such an act, once per new text and claim; nobody is behind a publisher either, so these act as the rule's owner too. Only 'entered' has a 'status'; pass an empty one for the others. 'fromStatus' narrows any of them to an issue coming from that state: the state it has just left for 'entered', the state it stands in for the rest. A rule with action 'move' MOVES the issue to 'moveToStatus' instead of appending anything, and has no template (pass an empty one). The move is an ordinary one — made as whoever last saved or switched on the rule, asked of the project's workflow, written to the history with the rule's name, and followed by the rules of the state it lands in. A workflow that refuses it leaves a 'moveRefused' line with the reason in the journal and nothing else; 'moved' is a move made; 'tooDeep' is a move not made because rules had already moved issues three times off one event. A rule with action 'agent' is a DUTY instead: it says which issues may be handed to an agent role (agentRole, e.g. 'product') and what the agent may do with them. Its 'template' is then the INSTRUCTION — what doing such an issue means in this project — and nothing is appended anywhere. A duty may have no state (pass an empty 'status'): then an issue is handed only by a person. agentActions is a list from: describe, subtasks, ask, wiki, report, support, jira (propose a move or a comment in the project's linked Jira, applied by a person). agentFields names the fields it may set: priority, labels, duedate, or the project's own fields by name. doneStatus is the state it moves the issue to when done — never a finished one. capUsd raises what one task may cost, up to 5 dollars. Commenting is always allowed; finishing, deleting, reassigning and anything outside the issue never are. Saving or switching on a duty makes it yours: it runs on your behalf and access, and is switched off if you lose the project. Answers with each rule's id (the other rule tools take it), action, trigger, state, conditions (type, label, fromStatus, branch — null means any), template, moveToStatus and whether it is on, and for a duty its 'agent' part; with the state and type names, the triggers and the actions a rule may use, the agent roles, actions and fields a duty may name where agents are on; and 'canEdit'. Any member may read them.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectKeyYesProject key, e.g. 'ONB'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it summarizes the returned fields, states that any member may read rules, and explains rule semantics around triggers, matching, ownership, and journal outcomes. It does not, however, describe ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior for the listing itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely long and front-loads a dense domain explanation of rules, triggers, webhook events, duties, and journal statuses before reaching what the tool actually returns. For a simple one-parameter read/list operation, much of this text is not tightly scoped to the tool's purpose, and the actual listing behavior is buried near the end.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by summarizing the returned fields: rule id, action, trigger, state, conditions, template, moveToStatus, whether it is on, agent details where applicable, and canEdit. It also states the permission model. It is missing only minor list-operation details such as ordering/pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter, projectKey, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as 'Project key, e.g. ONB.' The description does not mention the parameter or add any project-key-specific semantics, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description eventually indicates retrieval via 'Answers with each rule's id...' and 'Any member may read them,' but it never opens with a clear verb+resource statement like 'List all automation rules for a project.' The bulk of the text explains rule semantics rather than the tool's own action, making the purpose inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It mentions that 'the other rule tools take' the returned id and that any member may read rules, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_project_rule, update_project_rule, delete_project_rule, or get_project_rule_runs. No when/when-not conditions or alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources